Populism Emerging in Belgium? How the Recent Turmoil Reshaped the Political Landscape

By Liesbet DebeckerWhen, on Saturday evening, the so-called ‘Swedish coalition’ that formed the Belgian government finally crumbled, no one who has followed Belgian politics over the past few weeks was surprised. What exactly happened in this chronicle of a death foretold? What led the Belgian government to collapse over a non-binding international treaty?

Up until 14 November of this year, the Belgian government, dubbed the
Swedish coalition because of the alliance between N-VA, a Flemish nationalist
and conservative party, the Flemish and Walloon liberal parties and the Flemish
Christian-Democratic party, seemed likely to survive until the next election in
May 2019. Granted, this government has been through crises in the past four
years, but it has always managed to overcome them by finding compromise and
consensus. Up until 14 November, it seemed like Belgium would support and sign
the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. But on 14 November,
the first cracks of a crisis that would break up the Swedish coalition began to
show: the N-VA announced that it no longer backed the Global Compact for
Migration. This came only a few weeks after the Belgian local elections, during
which the N-VA had hoped to get a better result than obtained.

The announcement to no longer back the Global Compact came from the Secretary
of State for Asylum and Migration, Theo Francken. His period as Secretary of
State has not been without criticism, with some disapproval already surrounding
his appointment after accusations of racist and homophobic comments and ties to
extreme right groups emerged. Yet he remained in office and became known for
being proactive in trying to limit migration and tighten regulation. Controversy
reared its head again in 2017, when he asked the Sudanese dictatorial regime
for help with identifying Sudanese migrants staying in the Brussels Maximilian
park in order to deport them. He later had to halt these deportations to Sudan
when some of the identified migrants claimed they had been tortured upon
return. Not long after he was heavily criticised by his opponents and various
human rights groups, both nationally and internationally, for building new
detention units for migrant families with children and reinstating the
possibility to detain children before deportation, a practice previously
condemned by the European Court of Human Rights. Both his policies and use of
language often found condemnation.

“The N-VA gave the Prime Minister an ultimatum: either he abstained from signing the Compact or the party would leave the government.”

His policies became emblematic for the position of the entire N-VA, who
made migration one of their key areas of interest. It is within this context
that on 14 November, the party announced its inability to support the Global
Compact, stating the treaty was incompatible with their migration policy. This
announcement came more than a month after Prime Minister Charles Michel proclaimed
Belgium’s support for the Global Compact in the UN General Assembly. In the
weeks following the announcement, tensions rose as the N-VA gave the Prime
Minister an ultimatum: either he abstained from signing the Compact or the
party would leave the government. But the stronger the N-VA voiced its
opposition against the Global Compact, the firmer the Prime Minister stood by
his convictions.

This led to a game of political chess. As experts were clarifying the
nature and contents of the Compact in parliament, the Flemish nationalists
launched a campaign that not only condemned the Global Compact itself, but also
condemned migration in general. The statements used in the campaign did not
survive any factcheck. With this attack finding compromise with the rest of the
government became impossible. Only two days after the launch of the campaign,
on 5 December, the Prime Minister gained the parliamentary majority needed to
support his trip to Marrakech. Any attempts of resuscitating the government over
the following days failed and the final blow was admitted last Saturday, when the
government decided to continue without the Flemish nationalists.

From afar, it would seem as if the N-VA gambled and lost its seat in the
government. Not everyone would agree however. The minority government now in
place until the next elections in May will have to find a majority in
parliament for every measure they would like to adopt in the following months,
which will not be an easy task. This will be seen with issues that are on the
agenda but are yet to be implemented within the law.

The events of the past few days will also become hot topics for election campaigns, of which migration will now become one of the inevitable themes. Not only will N-VA be contending for the anti-immigration vote, but Vlaams Belang, a conservative Flemish nationalist and populist party, will be breathing down the party’s neck. Does the N-VA want to win votes by turning more populis? To some it is no coincidence that the controversy around the Global Compact started only shortly after the local elections, elections during which Vlaams Belang gained more support than it has during the past few years.

“Migration will now become one of the inevitable themes of the upcoming elections.”

Whatever the cause of the recent polemic, it has left the country more polarised. Over the past four years Theo Francken’s migration policy has caused heavy debates amongst the population. The recent events will only deepen the existing divide on the matter, a divide now also definitely entering at the governmental level. Whatever the outcome of the May elections, a political deadlock seems more plausible than ever.

Liesbet did a bilingual bachelor in law at the Brussels campus of the Catholic University of Leuven. After that, she obtained her masters in law at the Catholic University of Leuven, spending one year of her master’s on exchange at the University of Vienna. Her specialisations were criminal law, international and European law, but she wrote her thesis in human rights law. Her main interest is gender issues in law.